Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-28-2003
Fotta v. UMWA Health
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket 01-2097
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Fotta v. UMWA Health" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 705.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/705
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 01-2097
ABRAHAM FOTTA, individually and
on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated,
Appellant
v.
TRUSTEES OF THE UNITED MINE WORKERS
OF AMERICA, HEALTH AND RETIREMENT FUND
OF 1974; MICHAEL HOLLAND; DONALD
PIERCE; ELLIOT SEGAL;
JOSEPH STAHL, II
ORDER
In order to correct a typographic error in a citation made in the fourth
paragraph of Section III. A. 1 of the Court’s opinion filed February 11, 2003, it is hereby O
R D E R E D that the following text is substituted for that paragraph:
In fact, Fotta I did not even address the issue of liability. It
determined who has a cause of action under § 502(a)(3)(B).
Before Fotta I, only an ERISA beneficiary who had brought a
legal action to recover wrongfully withheld benefits could sue
for interest under § 502(a)(3)(B). See, e.g., Anthuis, 971 F.2d
at 1010. In Fotta I, we were asked to decide whether a
beneficiary who recovered wrongfully withheld benefits
without resorting to litigation could sue under § 502(a)(3)(B).
Fotta I, 165 F.3d at 211. (“This appeal raises an issue of first
impression for this court: whether a beneficiary who has been
able to receive his her benefits due under an ERISA plan only
after considerable delay, but without resorting to litigation to
recover that payment, has a cause of action [under §
502(a)(3)(B)].”) We determined that § 502(a)(3)(B) did
provide a cause of action for such plaintiffs. We did not,
however, address the standard of liability that would trigger an
obligation to pay interest.
For the Court,
/s/ Marcia M. Waldron
Clerk
Dated: March 28, 2003